Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Santosh Kumar Soni vs District Judge Bundi And Anr on 12 January, 2011
Author: Prem Shanker Asopa
Bench: Prem Shanker Asopa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.305/2011 Santosh Kumar Soni Versus The Distt. Judge, Bundi and another DATE OF ORDER --- January 12,2011 PRESENT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Sudershan Laddha, for the petitioner BY THE COURT
(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2010 (Anx.1) whereby in a pending application for judicial separation filed u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short `the Act of 1955'), interim maintenance u/s 24 of the Act of 1955 has been awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of application and Rs.1,000/- has also been awarded as legal expenses.
(3) A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.11.2010 reveals that the respondent-wife has made specific averment that the petitioner-husband being the owner of Multi-media Photo Studio, is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and is also running one provision store from which he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from it, in Town Sagar, he has got a plot worth Rs.7 lacs, therefore, the respondent-wife claimed Rs.7,000/- per month as the interim maintenance.
(4) The petitioner husband did not file reply to the aforesaid application. However, he orally opposed the application.
(5) The trial court after considering the material available on record, fixed Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application. and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as legal expenses.
(6) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim maintenance ought to have been awarded from the date of order and the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is excessive.
(7) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions.
(8) In my view, award of the interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of application as also legal expenses amounting to Rs.1,000/-, particularly when the facts mentioned in the application submitted by the respondent-wife have not been controverted by the petitioner-husband by filing reply to the application and the total income of Rs.40,000/- per month has not been controverted is justified.
(9) As regards the submission of counsel for the petitioner-husband that the interim mainteannce ought to have been awarded from the date of order, the law is well settled that the same is to be awarded from the date of application.
(10) I find no error in the impugned order of the trial court, dated 26.11.2010. The trial court has neither failed to exercise its jurisdiction nor it has exceeded in its jurisdiction.
(11) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.
(Prem Shanker Asopa) J.
??pa?